What blows me away is that this ruling was by a New York judge. She got it right. These are excerpts from the article linked at bottom. The ruling appears to disallow the enforcement of this one provision of the NDAA.

Quote:A district-court judge has suspended enforcement of a law that could strip U.S. citizens of their civil rights and allow indefinite detention of individuals President Obama believes to be in support of terror.

The Obama administration has refused to ensure that the First Amendment rights of authors and writers who express contrary positions or report on terror group activities are protected under his new National Defense Authorization Act.

Targeted in the stunning ruling from U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of New York was Paragraph 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law last Dec. 31. The vague provision appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights for, and indefinite detention of, those individuals targeted by the president as being in support of terror.

Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.


The case was before Forrest on a request for a temporary restraining order. The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention, he said. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

The opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to,” Titus said.

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

Forrest found that the plaintiffs had a reasonable fear of detention based on the language of the statute. She ordered the provision not to be enforced until further proceedings in her court or “remedial” action by Congress that would restore those protections.

The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs – or others – are not within [paragraph] 1021. It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on 1st Amendment rights as reasonable – and real,” Forrest said.

Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1. Since the vote was on changes recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell, it was scheduled to take effect without further vote.

Marshall then wrote leaders in state legislatures around the country suggesting similar votes in their states.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/obama-citizen...n-trouble/

While all the parties of interest make for an interesting list, the legal point is very important. Dang, they are either incredibly sneaky in trying to take away rights or they are incredibly sloppy and (intentionally) vague when writing the legislation. Or both which would be my bet.

Slowy, Slowly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgrktRgjBXk

I don't know why you'd be shocked this came out of NY--civil liberties and the ACLU are very popular there. In contrast, ARE country types seem to only care about civil liberties when they aren't in power. Anyway, that provision is awful and it's a good ruling.

(05-18-2012 04:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't know why you'd be shocked this came out of NY--civil liberties and the ACLU are very popular there. In contrast, ARE country types seem to only care about civil liberties when they aren't in power. Anyway, that provision is awful and it's a good ruling.

LOL at the poster who has the guy who signed this anti-civil liberty abortion of a bill into law as his avatar trying to paint others as being wishy-washy on civil liberties.

(05-18-2012 08:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 04:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't know why you'd be shocked this came out of NY--civil liberties and the ACLU are very popular there. In contrast, ARE country types seem to only care about civil liberties when they aren't in power. Anyway, that provision is awful and it's a good ruling.

LOL at the poster who has the guy who signed this anti-civil liberty abortion of a bill into law as his avatar trying to paint others as being wishy-washy on civil liberties.

Yes. He is also the liar that said he would not raid medical Cannabis clinics. So much for campaign promises. Same old BS. Nothing changes...OH..I forgot. Obama campaigned on change.